"A Maryland county court yesterday rejected a challenge to the use of
electronic voting machines that sought to allow voters to opt out of using
the technology."
At 01:21 PM 9/22/2004 -0500, Homer wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 10:05, pressinfo (at) diebold (dot) com [email concealed] wrote:
> > In-Reply-To: <20040831203815.13871.qmail (at) www.securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]>
> >
> > Diebold strongly refutes the existence of any "back doors" or "hidden
> > codes" in its GEMS software. These inaccurate allegations appear to
> > stem from those not familiar with the product, misunderstanding the
> > purpose of legitimate structures in the database. These structures
> > are well documented and have been reviewed (including at a source code
> > level) by independent testing authorities as required by federal
> > election regulations.
>
> And the reason that something this critical isn't open source so that
>*everyone* that wants to audit it can is? There is no way I will use one
>of those to process my vote till it has been proven to not have back
>doors. Independent testers are nice, but not enough to prove beyond a
>doubt that there are no hidden entries, and that 1 + 1 still = 2 in your
>calculations. Especially with the way this election year is going, I
>don't trust *anyone*. Just my 2 cents worth.
>
>--
>Homer Parker /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
>BOFH for homershut.net \ / No HTML/RTF in email
>http://www.homershut.net x No Word docs in email
>telnet://bbs.homershut.net / \ Respect for open standards
>
>"Bill Gates reports on security progress made and the challenges ahead."
>-- Microsoft's Homepage, on the day an SQL Server bug crippled large
> sections of the Internet.
"A Maryland county court yesterday rejected a challenge to the use of
electronic voting machines that sought to allow voters to opt out of using
the technology."
No option !!
Source:
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,95688
,00.html?from=homeheads
At 01:21 PM 9/22/2004 -0500, Homer wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 10:05, pressinfo (at) diebold (dot) com [email concealed] wrote:
> > In-Reply-To: <20040831203815.13871.qmail (at) www.securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]>
> >
> > Diebold strongly refutes the existence of any "back doors" or "hidden
> > codes" in its GEMS software. These inaccurate allegations appear to
> > stem from those not familiar with the product, misunderstanding the
> > purpose of legitimate structures in the database. These structures
> > are well documented and have been reviewed (including at a source code
> > level) by independent testing authorities as required by federal
> > election regulations.
>
> And the reason that something this critical isn't open source so that
>*everyone* that wants to audit it can is? There is no way I will use one
>of those to process my vote till it has been proven to not have back
>doors. Independent testers are nice, but not enough to prove beyond a
>doubt that there are no hidden entries, and that 1 + 1 still = 2 in your
>calculations. Especially with the way this election year is going, I
>don't trust *anyone*. Just my 2 cents worth.
>
>--
>Homer Parker /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
>BOFH for homershut.net \ / No HTML/RTF in email
>http://www.homershut.net x No Word docs in email
>telnet://bbs.homershut.net / \ Respect for open standards
>
>"Bill Gates reports on security progress made and the challenges ahead."
>-- Microsoft's Homepage, on the day an SQL Server bug crippled large
> sections of the Internet.
[ reply ]